The word 'tenant' in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act includes a contractual sub-tenant whose sub-lease is valid under the Act, and sub-section (2) of Section 15 protects a transferee of a contractual tenant as well as a transferee of a lawful contractual sub-tenant.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 14, 15 - VALIDITY OF SUB-LEASE - INTERPRETATION OF 'TENANT' - PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 15(2) - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRACTUAL TENANT AND STATUTORY TENANT - APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 108(J) - DETERMINATION OF SUB-TENANCY STATUS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, Josephy Santa Vincent, claimed to be a sub-tenant of the second respondents, Messrs. William Jacks and Company Limited, who were the tenants of the first respondents, Messrs. Ambico Industries, who leased the property from the Bombay Port Trust. The petitioner's possession of the godown was challenged by the first respondents, leading to legal proceedings. The trial court and the Appellate Bench of the Bombay Small Cause Court dismissed the petitioner's suit, holding that he was not a lawful sub-tenant and could not claim protection under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the word 'tenant' in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act includes a contractual sub-tenant whose sub-lease is valid under the Act. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 15 protects a transferee, whether by way of a sub-lease, assignment, or otherwise, of a contractual tenant as well as a transferee of a lawful contractual sub-tenant. The petitioner, as the sub-tenant of the second respondents, was entitled to the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 15, provided he was a sub-tenant and not merely a licensee of the second respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a lawful sub-tenant of the second respondents and had become the tenant of the first respondents under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Whether the word 'tenant' in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act includes a contractual sub-tenant whose sub-lease is valid under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word 'tenant' in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act to include a contractual sub-tenant whose sub-lease is valid under the Act. This interpretation was based on the following reasoning: - A contractual sub-tenant, in the absence of the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 15, is normally entitled to transfer his leasehold interest by sub-lease, assignment, or otherwise. - The Legislature could not have intended to prohibit contractual tenants from transferring their leasehold interest while allowing contractual sub-tenants to do so. - The correctness of this conclusion is supported by the fact that if the second respondents were held not to be tenants under Section 15, the petitioner would still be a lawful sub-tenant and could claim protection under sub-section (2) of Section 15. 2. The court also held that sub-section (2) of Section 15 protects a transferee, whether by way of a sub-lease, assignment, or otherwise, of a contractual tenant as well as a transferee of a lawful contractual sub-tenant.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Bombay Small Cause Court were set aside, and the appeal before the Appellate Bench was restored. The Appellate Bench was directed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties on the surviving question of whether the petitioner was a sub-tenant or licensee of the second respondents. The Appellate Bench was directed to dispose of the appeal within two months of receiving the order.

JUDGMENT - 1. This petition has been filed with a view to challenge the legality of a decree passed by a Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court and confirmed by an Appellate Bench of that Court. The property in dispute consists of a godown at Ballard Estate in Bombay. The godown is a part of an extensive estate which belongs to the Bombay Port Trust and which has been leased by the Port Trust to the first respondents Messrs. Ambico Industries. The first respondents let out the godown to the second respondents Messrs. William Jacks and Company Limited. In January 1957 the petitioner Josephy Santa Vincent went into the possession of the godown under an agreement with the second respondents. On August 1, 1959 the second respondents surrendered their tenancy to the first respondents. In April 1960, the first respondents filed a suit against the second respondents in the Bombay Small Cause Court for possession of the godown. The petitioner was not made a party to that suit. An ex parte decree for possession was obtained in that suit by the first respondents in October 1960. When the ex parte decree was sought to be executed an obstruction was offered by the petitioner but the obstruction was ordered to be removed by the Court. The petitioner then filed a suit in the same Court for a declaration that he was the lawful sub-tenant of the second respondents and had become the tenant of the first respondents under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act on the determination of the second respondents tenancy. After filing the suit, the petitioner obtained an order of interim stay against the execution of the ex parte decree. Due to some typing error in the stay order, however, the decree was executed and possession of the godown was obtained by the first respondents. Thereupon the petitioner got his plaint amended so as to add a prayer for restoration of possession of the godown.

2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on two grounds. The learned trial Judge held, in the first place, that assuming the premises to have been sub-let by the second respondents to the petitioner in January 1957, the sub-lease was not validated by sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Bombay Rent Act, that the premises cannot be held to have been lawfully sub-let to the petitioner, and that the petitioner cannot, therefore, be deemed to have become the tenant of the first respondents under Section 14 of the Act. The learned Judge observed in this connection that as the property belonged to the Bombay Port Trust the first respondents were the tenants of the godown, that the second respondents were the sub-tenants and that the petitioner could only claim to be tge sub-tenant of sub-tenants. Relying upon the decision in Balkrishna Sayanna, (1963) 65 Bom LR 149 the learned trial Judge held that the petitioner, being the sub-tenant of a sub-tenant, cannot claim the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 15. Secondly the learned Judge held that the premises had been sub-let to him in January 1957 by the second respondents. The learned Judge was of the view that the right of storing goods in the premises.

3. From this decree dismissing his suit the petitioner went in appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Bombay Small Cause Court. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Appellate Bench. In its judgment the Appellate Bench proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of the second respondant. Relying on the said decision in 65 Bom LR 149, the Appellate Bench held that a sub -tenants sub-tenant was not protected by the Rent Act and the Trial Court was, therefore , justified in dismissing the petitioners suit. The Appellate Bench did not decide the question whether the peti tioner was a tenant or a licensee of the second respondents.

4. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed before me by Mr. Nariman for the petitioner and Mr. Banaji for the first respondents, it would be useful to refer to Sections 14 and 15 of the Rent Act. Section 14 provides

Click Here to Read the rest of this document